In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

SterCrazy Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 1:37 PM
This morning, a caller to Greg Garrison's radio talk show in Indianapolis asked, regarding a baby conceived during rape, "If a baby can be killed because they are a burden, an embarrassment, or a reminder of shame from rape, is it that much more of a leap for a family to say that a daughter is a reminder, an embarrassment, or a shame and execute her, as is done by some under Sharia?" Mourdock didn't go on in his comments to say that the rapist, not the baby should be subject to capital punishment. The Pro-Life position must emphasize that aborting the child of rape is capital punishment applied to the innocent, not the guilty. If society should decide that anyone should die for these offenses, it should be the perpetrator, not victim.

As Richard Mourdock’s Indiana Senate fate hinges on how voters absorb his views on rape, all conservatives have an opportunity for a look in the mirror.

Just how pro-life do we want to be?

The Mourdock controversy is nothing like Todd Akin’s self-inflicted wound in Missouri, the result of an embrace of just plain bad medical information.

Mourdock is in hot water for accurately (if not particularly skillfully) articulating what God instructs about the life of the unborn.

If he is on politically shaky ground, it is because he had the courage to stand on the...